Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I feel like it would have taken less time to stop, think, and create some kind of plan for replace. They've just straight wasted almost a year trying to kill it with no thought to what comes after (or at least no public plan, which is what's important).

[inteuniso]

I feel like it would have taken less time to stop, think, and create some kind of plan for replace. They've just straight wasted almost a year trying to kill it with no thought to what comes after (or at least no public plan, which is what's important).

It's like Christmas decorations slowly creeping up: the thoughts towards next election have become so encompassing that they thought more about how posturing against Obummercare would look towards their constituents versus, ya know, actually performing the duties they were elected to perform.

Seriously, cyborg overlords when?

[redwallzyl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4&t

You know I'm so damn sick of this country. Everything is so goddamn corrupt its going to take a century to fix all this shit.

and that's with the equivalent of Jesus, Teddy and Washington as president.

[Trekkin]

Likely, in the leadup to the launch of the nuclear dildo, show of force would be on the table-- which would include massing (and possibly arming with better systems) such vehicles within strike distance.

What escalation scenario are you imagining where we have time to fundamentally change the armaments of our fleets to accommodate direct-fire capabilities for which they were never designed?

[NullForceOmega]

News flash: Our battleships are held in reserve status so they may be re-activated as needed for direct fire and support missions.  They aren't sitting there being maintained purely for show, we've pulled them out of mothballs before and we are prepared to do so again.

[Dunamisdeos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4&t

You know I'm so damn sick of this country. Everything is so goddamn corrupt its going to take a century to fix all this shit.

and that's with the equivalent of Jesus, Teddy and Washington as president.

Ya'll Americans need Surak.

News flash: Our battleships are held in reserve status so they may be re-activated as needed for direct fire and support missions.  They aren't sitting there being maintained purely for show, we've pulled them out of mothballs before and we are prepared to do so again.

Did not know this and am interested in reading more. Link me, please?

[NullForceOmega]

Sorry, don't have a direct link, we pulled them during Vietnam and Desert Storm, and when they were 'retired' in the early 2000's they were put in standby, we didn't even remove their shells (mostly because the cost of removing the shells is greater than maintaining them in the magazine).  I learned about most of it from my uncle, who was a captain in the U.S. Navy up until just after Grenada.  And I've heard it confirmed from numerous sources.  I'll dig around and see if I can pull an actual link from the Navy.

Edit: And the very first hit when searching for "U.S. Navy battleship readiness" is a Wikipedia article citing a 2007 order requiring that the Iowa-class battleships be kept ready for deployment.

Additional edit: The article does point out that the ships were slated to be fully decommissioned, but due to the cancellation of the Zumwalt-class destroyers the Navy has not met requirements to permanently remove the ships from it's register.  And according to the above mentioned order have to keep the Iowa and Missouri in readiness for modernization and deployment.

[Madman198237]

Argh, I missed the good discussion.

Naval gunfire: No.

We do NOT have ANY naval assets capable of inland bombardment. Yes, the remaining Iowa-class battleships are "reserve status", but that means NOTHING. It's a formality, IF it's even still a thing. To put the, what, two remaining Iowas to sea would require YEARS of restoration, rebuilding, and rewiring. Not to mention that the last time we did it, we had to pull 60-year-old WWII vets back to train people on how to fire a 16 inch gun. Even without the issues of training people to use a freaky hybrid of WWII equipment and (somewhat) modern equipment, battleships take THOUSANDS of men to operate, men who are generally better put to use elsewhere. Unless we enter another LENGTHY conflict that requires the sort of massive artillery bombardment that can only be fulfilled by a battleship firing against enemies with no antiship missiles and no aircraft power to speak of, the Iowa-class battleships will never again be activated.

As for other ships, we MAYBE have a few 6-inch guns scattered around on the Zumwalts, and five-inchers (Which are effectively useless for naval bombardment, by the way) on a few other ships.

Basically, it's technically infeasible for a multitude of reasons to lay down a naval bombardment with regular guns. The only things we could use from the navy are aircraft (Totally different kettle of high-flying heavily-armed fish) and missiles, and missiles are for STRATEGIC (As opposed to tactical) targets only, since they have such a long time-to-target and are relatively expensive.

[NullForceOmega]

Actually, YES.  I just posted a link to the article discussing it.  It isn't a formality, and it wouldn't take years of anything, it is a LAW that they are kept in readiness for exactly the purpose of direct fire support.

[Dunamisdeos]

Actually, YES.  I just posted a link to the article discussing it.  It isn't a formality, and it wouldn't take years of anything, it is a LAW that they are kept in readiness for exactly the purpose of direct fire support.

BUT THEN!!!

In response, the navy has pointed to the cost of reactivating the two Iowa-class battleships to their decommissioned capability. The navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[26][27] but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe. In terms of schedule, the Navy's program management office estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate memory and the shipyard industrial base.[2]

I mean this is an interesting discussion, but we don't need those ships to ruin N. Korea's butthole sans-nukes. I think we have plenty of other options.

[NullForceOmega]

We do, in fact, the U.S. Navy isn't feared for nothing, regardless of direct fire support capability we can deliver a truly unreal amount of ordnance to just about any target on Earth.

Edit: Missed the 20 to 40 months part on my first read, but it is worth noting that the cost for modernization of those vessels is a tenth of what one Zumwalt was costing us.

[Frumple]

I feel like it would have taken less time to stop, think, and create some kind of plan for replace. They've just straight wasted almost a year trying to kill it with no thought to what comes after (or at least no public plan, which is what's important).

If by almost a year you mean nearly a decade, that is. You'd think it'd take less time to stop, but apparently during the entire period between the ACA being even a suggestion and now the GOP's policy wonks shoved their heads so far up their own arses they did that thing where they fold up into themselves and disappear with a pop.

I can only assume the republican party subsequently thinks it would take a few centuries to come up with a plan to replace, and so fighting to put tens of thousands of americans in the grave is a larger priority/more achievable goal.

[Madman198237]

Read that article again, would you? That's an article about the gun-power debate, not an act of Congress.

And yes, cool, the ships are being "maintained", which means the shells (probably) aren't going to deteriorate and explode in the bunkers and the ships are not rusting to pieces as they sit there.

They do NOT, however have trained crews, and do NOT have modernized equipment, both of which are generally regarded as an absolute NECESSITY for combat deployment.

You don't seem to understand what goes into activating such a ship. It can't be done in the time it would take to take out NK.

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, I did read it.  It clearly references a 2007 ACT OF CONGRESS, which in layman's terms is a "law" that requires those ships to be kept in a ready state, and why they are being maintained.

I have full understanding on how ship crews are trained and what modernization entails.

That out of the way, it seems like you've got an axe to grind on this subject, and I'm not going to be your target, have a nice evening.

[Madman198237]

I do not have an axe to grind, my issue is that you do not have a logical basis for your argument.

You're insisting that it could be done in fewer than a couple years. This is not fact, I've presented some (Admittedly without numbers, but if you REALLY want I'll go dredge up some numbers from WWII or even Vietnam/the Gulf War for crew training and modernization) facts that have bearing on it.

Those ships aren't getting combat-deployed without a full overhaul to ensure that the ships are seaworthy and functional on a basic level, and they're not getting deployed with unmodernized equipment such as they have.

They also aren't getting deployed without crew, and training several thousand men for positions that haven't truly existed in navies for sixty years is no mean feat.

Yes, we've reactivated battleships a couple of times, but they've not been a large-scale part of the Navy for decades.